CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
2.4 MODELS FOR ANALYSING POLICY MAKING PROCESSES
plays a primary role in policy making and programme implementation (as the majority party) in this municipality.
elite is able to act in an environment characterised by apathy and information distortion and thereby able to govern a largely- passive mass of people. This model therefore clearly has some
severe limitations in that it sees society as divided into those who have power and those who do not. Elites share common values that are dedicated to preserving the status quo.
Figure 2:The Elite or Mass Model Source: Dye,1998:22
Eiite>
Policy Direction
i
Officials and Administrators
Policy Execution
1
\Mass
This model is based on the assumption that the elites are firmly in power, that they know best and that consensus on policy exists within the elite group (Cloete and Wissink, 2000:34). Clearly, this implies that the values and interests of the elite are of primary importance. This assumption can also be applied to the
organisational level in the private and non-governmental sectors.
The above description of the role of the elite in the policy process is often oversimplified. Literature and experiences show that 'the masses' aren't necessarily passive and ill-informed and that they may play a pivotal role in policy making and act as a dynamic catalyst for policy change (Cloete and Wissink, 2000:35).
> GROUP MODEL
One of the main agents for policy change is the initiative by interest groups to pressure and interact with policy makers on preferences and self-interest. Several different interest groups are usually involved and an equal measure of prestige and influence for each would result in the effect depicted in Figure 3.
Figure 3: The Group Model of Policy-making and Implementation: Phase 1 Source: Cloete and Wissink, 2000:35
Interest Group A Policy makers Interest Group B
Public policy outcomes favourable to Group B
Public policy outcomes favourable to Group A
As illustrated above, group pressures are of particular importance in policy-making processes of a participative nature. According to
Hanekom (1991:79), the influence of an interest group on the policy maker determines the extent of its success in influencing the policy making. Forum activity highlights the particular experience of South Africa. Indeed, forums as vehicles for policy input represent an institutionalised arrangement to ensure that interaction on the particular policy debate does take place. Dye (1998:20) argues that the group becomes the essential bridge between the individual and the government. This model also has particular implications for political decisions (e.g. the dynamics in the cabinet) and those at an organisational level. Individuals in a policy-making body, such as a commission, wield similar pressures. Hypothetically, the outcome of public policy is representative of an equilibrium reached in the struggle between groups.
Figure 4 :The Group Model of Public Making and Implementation:Phase II Source: Cloete and Wissink, 2000:35
Interest Group A
Policy makers Interest Group B
Public policy outcomes favourable to Group B
Public policy outcomes favourable to Group A
The model further assumes that policy makers are sensitive to the demands of interest groups. Its particular value lies in the fact that
it allows policy analysts to analyse policy-making processes in terms of the demands of participating groups. Policy analysts can therefore concentrate on the role of interest groups in the policy- making process when initiating and adapting policy. The notion of pressure groups and lobbying is highly relevant. Authors such as Henry in Wissink and Cloete (2000:35) describe the group model as a 'hydraulic thesis' in which the policy is seen as a system of forces and pressures acting upon and reacting to one another in the formulation of public policy. Henry also notes that the group model is normally associated with the legislature rather than the bureaucracy, but it has also long been recognised by scholars that the 'neutral' executive branch of government is also influenced by pressure groups.
> INSTITUTIONAL M O D E L
According to Hanekom (1991:81) the premise of the institutional model for the study of public policy is that public policy is the product of public institutions, which are also responsible for its implementation. Proponents of this model argue that as government legitimises public policy (only government policies apply to all members of society), the structure of governmental institutions can have an important bearing on policy results.
According to this view, changing merely the structure of governmental institutions will not bring about dramatic changes to policy. The relationship between the structure and the policy should always be taken into account.
According to Anderson (1979:22) in Cloete and Wissink (2000:36), the institutional model could be usefully employed in policy analysis by analysing the behaviour patterns of different public institutions, as for example, the legislature versus the executive and their effect on policy making. Anderson speaks of the traditional institutional model which focused on the organisation chart of government and describes the arrangement and official duties of bureau and departments, but customarily ignores the linkages between such units. Dye (1998:16) notes that the structure of government institutions may have important policy consequences; for instance, institutions may be so structured as to facilitate certain policy outcomes and obstruct other policy outcomes. With the onset of the 'behavioural revolution' in political science, institutional studies of the policy process were swept aside in favour of studies that relied more heavily on the group, systems and elite/mass models. A review of available policy material on the subject shows that the field of public administration, in particular, has focused on public policy as discussed throughout this chapter.
> SOCIAL INTERACTION MODEL
A range of decision-making models that are particularly useful in problem solving processes has also emerged. Models for general participation, negotiation, mediation and conflict resolution have proved to be very relevant to policy processes. The theory and practice of negotiations provides a framework for decision making on policy. This has been particularly true of constitutional negotiations in South Africa. Hanekom (1987:46) and Cloete and
Wissink (2000:37) also refer to other applications of models when they speak of descriptive models (which explain the causes and results of a specific policy), and normative models (which imply that in addition to explanation or prediction, rules should be provided to attain a specific goal) and verbal models (for example an announcement by a state president). This approach is depicted in the next diagram.
Figure 5: The Social Interaction Model: Styles of Influencing Source: Cloete and Wissink, 2000:38
"Persuasion"
"Exchange
Information, dissemination, education and propaganda
Advice, consultation,
persuasion
Tacit coordination
Adaptive adjustment
Reciprocal exchange
Obtaining mutual consent
Coalition- building
Mediation of rewards
Reinforcement and shaping
Bargaining and negotiation
"Authority
Psychological manipulation
Incentives and
inducements Authoritative prescription
Intermediation
Probes, threats, punishments
Command
Coercion and intimidation Low
High Low
Degree of central control Degree of choice in compliance Degree of intervention in policy conflict
High Low High
> SYSTEMS MODEL
According to Hanekom (1991:80), in the systems model for policy
system to the demands, wants, needs, problems or goals of interest groups or individuals. The systems model approach is regarded as one of the most valuable tools for the purposes of policy analysis. Cloete and Wissink (2000:39) noted that the idea of policy as a process is closely linked to the idea of a political system. This model is specifically helpful in portraying policy processes on a general and simplistic level and often identifies major subsystems and processes within the wider policy-making process as a political sub-process. The former is regarded as that which typically takes place within the bounds of the political arena and the latter as a broader sphere which includes implementation, results and evaluations.
According to Dye (1998:35) the systems model portrays public policy as an output of the political system. The concept implies that elements of the system are interrelated, that the system can respond to forces in its environment, and that it will do so to preserve it. This model, which is closely related to the well-known input-on output model of David Easton referred to in Cloete and Wissink (2000:37) which focuses on the response by the political system to the demands and needs of the interest groups.
According to Cloete and Wissink (2000:39) such demands enter the (political) system as inputs and through the political process via such channels as political debates, cabinet memoranda, proposals, counterproposals, consensus and decisions. When agreement on policy is finally reached, an output can be made. The systems model can provide perspectives on aspects such as the influence of the environment on political policy and vice versa, the success or ability of the political system to convert demands into public
policy, the effectiveness of the feedback process and the extent to which feedback information (results, impacts and consequences of policies) is incorporated into the adoption of existing or new policies. Dye (1998:35) describes the elements of the systems model as input which is characterised by demands and support, a political system which is influenced by decisions and actions, output and environment as reflected in Figure 6.
Figure 6: The Systems Approach to Policy Making Source: Dye,1998:35
& ^ o ^ ^
^
Demands N
P U
T Support S
THE POLITICAL
SYSTEM
% h
X
% %>
The systems model provides a particularly valuable framework for policy making. Easton's work on systems analysis - the high point of his contribution - shows that an analysis of political systems sheds much light on political dynamics and its impact on policy making. Cloete and Wissink (2000:40) note that the value of the systems model also lies in the framework that it provides; this describes the relationships between the demands, political systems
triggering new demands. Cloete and Wissink (2000:40) also note that the systems approach stresses the cyclical nature of policy making, as opposed to other models which see it as a sequential process. A typical disadvantage of the systems model is that when applied to the policy making process, it is analogous to a sausage machine or a production system. According to Cloete and Wissink (2000:41) it fails to describe how the actual transformation of inputs into outputs takes place, if viewing this part of the process as a 'black box'. It does not address the power relationships in decision making or identify the various other players in the policy process, thereby ignoring certain types of coalition. According to Cloete and Wissink (2000:41) the systems model tells us very little about political change and why certain policies evolve as a response to those changes. Lastly, the systems model implies that the policy process is logical and orderly, when in fact it is characterized by multiple factors and processes which often have a direct bearing on policy decisions.
It is worthwhile to note the policy flow model as proposed by Simmons et al (1974) in Cloete and Wissink (2000:41), in which they comment that 'the evolution of a policy issue is much more fluid than a single linear progression' The model is based on the policy systems approach and proposes that the areas of policy issues, policy environment and policy feedback receive special attention.
According to Dye (1998:36) the systems model poses some of the following questions:
• What are the significant dimensions of the environment that generate demands on the political system?
• What are the significant characteristics of the political system that enable it to transform demands into public policy and to preserve itself over time?
• How do the characteristics of the political system affect the content of public policy?
These questions make the systems model very valuable and relevant for all public policy processes. Elements which the authors refer to as the 'power system' (process issues) include clientele, pressure and legislative groups, constitutional and statutory provisions, professional staffing, financial arrangements and historical traditions. Anderson (1994:35) in Cloete and Wissink (2000:41) concludes his discussion of models on a cautionary note. He warns that it is wise not to be confined too dogmatically or rigidly to one model or approach. He regards it as a good rule to be flexible and to draw from different theories or concepts, noting what seems most useful in explaining policy making.
> NETWORK AND COMMUNITY MODELS
Public policy scholars realised that policy decisions taken only by a single decision maker are frequently negotiations between networks of policy stakeholders in different policy communities which may operate either inside or outside the public sector (Cloete and Wissink, 2000:42). These networks may be formalised
network is the existence and operation of the National Employment, Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC) in South Africa. NEDLAC is an informal discussion forum at national level, consisting of representatives from government and the above-mentioned sectors that meet to co ordinate major policy decisions and feed them back to formalised structures for the ratification of the informal agreements reached. This approach to policy decision making amounts to an expansion of the basic systems model, in combination with some elements of the group competition and social interaction models.
It is more holistic than some of the earlier, more narrowly-focused models (like the elite, institutional and group models) and presents a more accurate perspective on contemporary policy processes. The Social Interaction Model reflects the current practice at the eThekwini Municipality where there is commitment to participation and negotiation with affected stakeholders in both policy processes and the implementation of programmes. This commitment has been shown by the establishment of a new unit called Community Participation and Action Support, whose primary goal is to engage communities in all municipal policy processes and programmes (eThekwini Municipality, IDP.2004).